30 October 2011 11:11 AM

Journalism, propaganda and moral confusion (part two)

As I noted earlier today in an update on my previous post, the BBC News website finally reported yesterday’s attacks on Israel at 04:10 this morning. Anyone going to the BBC websitea little later, however, will have seen this item, last updated at 08:38 GMT:

An Israeli man has been killed by a rocket attack from Gaza after nine Palestinian militants were killed by Israeli air strikes on the south of the Gaza Strip.'

This was of course quite wrong. The Israeli was murdered in Ashkelon by rocket fire from Gaza following a sequence of events which started last Wednesday with a Grad rocket attack from Gaza on Ashdod. That was followed by an Israeli strike on Gaza targeted at the Islamic Jihad cell which Israel said had carried out Wednesday’s attack and which, it said, was preparing to fire more long-range rockets. That strike in turn was used as the excuse for the barrage of rockets from Gaza yesterday which killed the Israeli in Ashkelon.

So anyone clicking on the BBC News home page and just scanning the headlines there would have received the entirely false impression that the Israeli had been killed because the Palestinians were retaliating to aggressive Israeli attacks. Curiously, however, the full story accessed through this particular 04:10 link on the home page appeared to have been corrected at some previous stage, reading instead:

‘Israel-Gaza exchange rocket and air strikes killing 10

'An Israeli man has been killed by rockets fired from the Gaza Strip. Palestinian militants had vowed to retaliate after five militants were killed by an Israeli air strike on the south of the Gaza Strip. Another four Palestinians were killed in further Israeli air raids after the rocket attacks.’

Even so, only further down this story did the BBC report the Palestinian attack that had provoked the first Israeli strike:

‘The [Israeli] spokesman said that the first attack, about midday local time, specifically targeted a cell responsible for a long-range rocket attack on Wednesday, that exploded deep inside Israel. That attack had caused no casualties.’

‘There are hopes for a ceasefire between Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip and Israel after violence on Saturday. Egypt tried to broker an end to a day of retaliatory rocket and air attacks which killed nine Palestinian militants and an Israeli civilian in Ashkelon.’

In this version, Wednesday’s initial Grad attack is way down the story. Despite all the serial alternations, the overall and misleading impression from this coverage over the past 24 hours is therefore, at best, of ‘tit-for-tat’ violence and, at worst, of Israeli aggression. Either way, the truth of what actually happened has been obscured – and hostility and hatred towards Israel for seeking to defend itself against rocket attacks aimed at killing Israeli innocents will be ratcheted up yet further.

If ordinary people complain to the BBC about its Middle East coverage they seem to get nowhere. The doughty defender of Israel and the west, Dr Denis MacEoin, was horrified by an article published on the BBC website following the release of the kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in exchange for more than 1400 Palestinian terrorists in Israeli jails. The article, matched against one by the father of an Israeli girl murdered in a Palestinian terrorist attack, called the released Palestinian terrorists ‘heroes’. This provoked Dr MacEoin to write a complaint to the BBC. Here’s part of it:

‘I was aghast to read a viewpoint piece by Palestinian Nasser Ziad, ‘Released Palestinian prisoners are heroes’. Even in a free society, there must be limits to the kind of opinion presented, especially on an established website such as yours. The author argues that the Palestinian prisoners released as part of a deal for the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit are heroes because of their struggle for the Palestinian cause. This is truly disgusting.

‘The prisoners included women like Wafa Biss and Ahlam Tamimi. Tamimi planned a suicide attack on the Sbarro restaurant in Jerusalem in 2001. 15 people including 8 children died in the bombing. When told she had killed 8, not 6 children, she smiled. Avraham Yitzhak Schijveschuurder was 4, his sister Hemda was 2. Since her release, Tamimi has spoken about waging jihad as before. She is not a heroine by any measure. Biss had been treated for severe burns in an Israeli hospital in January 2005 and returned in June using her out-patient pass to try to go to the same department that had saved her life, wearing an explosive belt, with instructions to kill as many children as possible. Since her release, she has spoken to Palestinian children, calling on them to grow up to become martyrs. She is utterly despicable by all civilized standards, and as far from being a heroine as I can imagine. Muhammad Wael Daghlas was sentenced to 15 life terms for co-planning the Sbarro massacre. He is thought too dangerous to return to the West Bank. A hero? By what warped standards can such a man be a hero to anyone?

‘These are only a few of the terrorists released by Israel. Ziad’s article describes the Israeli soldier Shalit as 'a legitimate target’. By what military standards may a soldier be kidnapped across his own border and subjected to over five years of solitary confinement, denied access by his family or the Red Cross.

‘You have published an article that turns all civilized standards on its head. Will you now publish a piece claiming that the London 7/7 bombers were heroes? That the Taliban who kill British soldiers and cause so much grief here are heroes? That murderers in the UK are heroes who deserve to be released? That kidnapping people is right? That those who executed the Omagh bombing in 1998 were fighting for a just cause, that we should build a memorial to them and give them medals?

‘You have gone too far this time. I can see no possible vindication for the publication of such a one-sided piece, which reads like a transcript from a Palestinian newspaper or a pro-terrorist opinion piece from The Guardian, which never plays by the rules. Fair argument about Palestinian aggression or Israeli responses would make a valid article, a piece that criticized violence, even if it promulgated a Palestinian position, would form part of dialogue, and I would not complain. But I am much minded of the repeated criticism that the BBC is biased against Israel. I have seen that bias played out too many times to doubt the broad accuracy of the criticism. But to publish a blatant piece that tries to exonerate mass murderers of their crimes is to pass well beyond the limits of civilized and legal discourse. Who will you choose to exonerate next? Adolf Hitler? Mu’ammar Qadhafi? Pol Pot?’

This was the reply Dr MacEoin received:

‘...The viewpoint that you complain about was a companion piece with this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15369286 by Ron Kehrmann. A woman convicted of involvement in the suicide bombing that killed Mr Kehrmann’s daughter was released as part of the prisoner swap. These two articles were intended to allow and Israeli and a Palestinian to explain in detail their views and feelings about the prisoner releases. Each article is highly opinionated, personal and partisan. They are both clearly labelled as “viewpoints”.

‘The article that you refer to outlines what Mr Ghoul [one of the released Palestinian prisoners] was convicted of. It attempts to explain how many Palestinians feel about the issue of prisoners in Israeli jails and about the acts of violence carried out by them against Israelis in Israel and the occupied territories. Such views are widely held by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, and therefore we feel that it is important to represent them as a means of explaining the importance of the events we are reporting on the news.

‘The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has multiple narratives and can be looked at in many ways. Military occupation and colonisation lasting many decades and the murderous attacks by Palestinians against Israeli civilians have left thousands dead and a far greater number of lives in ruins. Palestinians and Israelis have suffered greatly in this conflict. This is not to excuse any individual act of murder or violence. My point is that a piece explaining how a Palestinian feels about the prisoner releases, in this context and as a part of our wide range of coverage, is legitimate and revealing journalism.

‘I hope this goes some way to explaining why we commissioned and published this piece.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dear oh dear..the same old attempts to delegitimise Israel. The wrong minded are truly sillier and nastier than ever... and the Left will not change.

Who cares? What difference does fluffing of the moralist ego of the corpses of the Left help anyone, not least the Palestinians?

Don't you get it? Israel will not go away no matter to what extent you or anyone else may wish for it to do so.and your persistent bleating about how nasty it is - and by implication (sublimely wrong-headed) how nice the Palestinian and moslem leaderships in the region are by comparison - is just the stuff of blood curdling idiocy.

That poses a real problem. What's to be done with dem Jews?

No two state solution and a workable approach to jerusalem and the refugee problem; and continued demonisation of the Jew in the Middle East just wont help with the formulation of a sensible answer that can put a genuine halt to bloodletting. That's the A to Z of it. Dont face up to it at the peril of those you purport (who believes you, anyway?) to support.

A
"What venom. Your message is all too revealing about yourself. Crucially you do not acknowledge the difference between attack and defence. Given such moral bankruptcy, not surprisingly you do not allow mere facts to interrupt your stream of prejudices, the error of which is on display in virtually every phrase. The more you protest, the more you dig the hole ever deeper.Thanks for the ammunition for my position in defence of truth, justice and decency.
Melanie".
Melanie Phillips's comment made on the 31st of October, 2011, at 01:29 PM:
See link:
Melanie Phillips | 10/31/2011 at 01:29 PM

B
The Balfour Declaration

"Foreign Office,
November 2nd, 1917.

Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely
Arthur James Balfour"

C
Melanie Phillips's ammunition
for her position
in defence of
truth, justice and decency:

A call upon the British Government
for a sustained endeavour
to achieve the following
Declaration:

"Subject to the principle of Continuity of Government and, therefore, in their capacity of a proponent of the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd of November 1917, and of the UN Security Council Resolution 242 of the 22nd of November 1967, Her Majesty's Government, emphasising the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war; and emphasising further the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East – view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a sovereign State for the Palestinian people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the political, civil and religious rights of existing non-Palestinian communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Palestinians in any other country".

John Roosevelt,
You launch a diatribe against Hazlitt not based on what he said or what he thinks...Er? So, as was suggested, you don't intend to engage in debate, just to shout down anyone you think is against you?
I was surprised you think "Likudnik" a smear. As shorthand, it is, I grant you, inaccurate. The policy on territory and "Arabs" has been more or less the same whether Labour or Likud or whoever has formed the government.
I am also bemused that the statement that "Palestinians have rights AS WELL AS Israelis" should cause you paroxysms so acute that you fail to see that this is precisely what Melanie Phillips can't manage - the first glimmerings of an understanding that both sides have claims that deserve to be taken into account. I gather from your repeated insult-flecked postings that you share her bias and that Alison's strictures apply as well to you as to Melanie Phillips.

One wonders what it is Alison would have us prescribe for the conflict in the Middle East.

Can we not safely assume she thinks Israel a uniquely unjust entity both in the way it came into existence and the way it operates towards the Palestinians in particular and the wider world in general? Or perhaps she thinks that Israel merely represents the heinousness not only of classic imperialism but neo imperialism and little lse needs be said on the matter - and she sees herself as another proud (dare we say pious) acolyte of the Chomskian US-hate band of bruvvers?

Ok. We get it..but what next...and, for Alison and those who do seem to be her fellow travelers..and as I have asked before (thanks, Nick): WHAT"S LEFT??

Alison, we're all ears...and that includes all your brothers for whom we all know you have profound sympathy and have always had - in the rest of the Arab world (i.e. not just your focus of choice - Gaza) for whom we certainly heard nothing from your troops until this year and - actually - still hear very little.

Alison: "When you find yourself able to comment not just on the bits you think justify your prejudices, then perhaps you may start throwing around accusations of moral bankruptcy without provoking the same hollow laughter that greets complaints from you (of all people) about venom. Do try to be something more than a mere propagandist. Try to live up to the lofty ideals you brandish as if a defence of your rather less lofty practice: "truth, justice, and decency" will compel you to acknowledge that the Palestinians have rights as well as (N.B. AS WELL AS) Israelis, and that the state of Israel has very deliberately trampled those rights to acquire more land and more resources at their expense."

Does Alison, on wonders, ever defend Israel or is she the mirror image of what she accuses Melanie of being?

She is, I'm afraid, a defender of murderers in the name of justice and human rights - whichever way you hack it. That should give her pause for thought, but it wont. What club would she join then?

Ah, that famous "Likudnik" position. Far be it for dear Alison or the Left to smear, of course..

My point is not predicated on what Hazlitt has or hasn't said, in your view, Alison - nor what he thinks (more to the point).

Those who defend or apologise for Hamas and other Palestinian "freedom fighters" and, thereby, its policy of actually celebrating the killing of Jewish women and children just because they are Jews - are a key part in what is a tawdry coalition of opinion which - I say it again - can only ensure there is conflict in perpetuity. They cannot - in all seriousness - be defending the idea a two state solution by doing so and in fact most - particularly Abbas and his cronies - don't. They don't want a two state solution at all. They don't want Israel or Jews in the Middle East. Period.

It appears the faults I ascribed to Melanie Phillips are to be found in other apologists for what might be called the Likudnik Position. John Roosevelt ignores what Hazlitt did say, and denounces what Hazlitt certainly did not say. And on his way out, he deposits a vicious little smear (which he really ought to clear up) comparing "Hazlitts" to Pol Pot and Stalin in their disregard for human life. Does he think that talk of the "Hazlitts" of this world absolves him of responsibility to provide a reasonable response to what the Hazlitt he is addressing here actually said? Here is yet another attempt to shout down criticism and debate. These Likudniks must be very unsure (rightly so) that there are rational foundations for their prejudices.

Let's be clear: if there was the vaguest chance that the post '67 status quo only has to be reversed to the pre '67 status quo for all to be well in the Middle East, there would have been peace years ago.

The idea that all the Jews need to do is to commit politicide and desolve their state and all would be well, is also a patent nonsense.

All one do is look to the Hazlitts and the wrong minded (of which there are many) to discover the key to what is in fact the salient reality in the Middle East i.e. the consensus amongst the Palestinians and arabs and moslems of the region, generally, is that the Jew is a usurper of moslem land and should be exterminated.

One may sympathise with that view, of course (it's almost pc these days to do so, after all) and one may also feel that apologising for Islamic fundamentalism and moslem totalitarianism, homophobia etc..is far better than supporting the "neo colonialist" running pigs - the US and Israel. However, this view guarantees ongoing war and is that waht the Hazlitts and the wrong minded really pine for?

The Israelis are not Gadaffi. The Israelis are not Assad. The Israelis are not like any of the autocracies in the Middle east - in many more ways than the obvious. The Israelis are also not going to commit politicide; the Israeli are not going anywhere (they wont even take over Greece, if it is offered them) despite the multifarious challenges they face and will continue to do.

The Jews can play the long game as well as the moslems but the difference is that they seem to have an infinitely more evolved ability to prosper in the face of adversity, how long they have to suffer it.

The Palestinians, as always, will continue to be victimised by their brothers; victimised by those they try and exterminate - be they 3 month old babies or men at arms; but perhaps most of all - victimised by themselves.

The Hazlitts of this world, of course, couldn't care less. They remain down at the pub with their axes..as always - grinding away in despair of the harsh exposure of the Lib-leftist myth and, like the Stalins and Pol Pots of this world, shrug their shoulders when the bodies pile up in the sure knowledge that death is but nothing compared with being seen to support Israel or the US. What's Left for them? You may well ask...

The difference between attack and defence,
or:
Melanie Phillips's ammunition
for her position
in defence of
truth, justice and decency

"I don't know whether this headline is brazen or self-deluding. Don't report just those events that confirm your prejudices, or you're not a "journalist" but a "propagandist". Don't condemn the killing of some civilians but not others. Don't hide behind the casuistical excuse that the IDF does not "intend" to kill when it deliberately demolishes civilian quarters to "teach the population a lesson" (as Israeli politicians and IDF officers have explicitly stated), or you're clearly "morally confused". Start reporting what Israel does to Palestinians as well as vice versa. Let's make it easy for you, start with the non-lethal attacks by settlers and security services in the West Bank. You can work up to the preemptive collective punishments in Gaza once you have accustomed yourself to reporting both sides.
Alison".
Alison's comment made on the 31st of October, 2011, at 01:04 PM:
See link:
10/31/2011 at 01:04 PM

What venom. Your message is all too revealing about yourself. Crucially you do not acknowledge the difference between attack and defence. Given such moral bankruptcy, not surprisingly you do not allow mere facts to interrupt your stream of prejudices, the error of which is on display in virtually every phrase. The more you protest, the more you dig the hole ever deeper.Thanks for the ammunition for my position in defence of truth, justice and decency.
Melanie".
Melanie Phillips's comment made on the 31st of October, 2011, at 01:29 PM:

The difference between attack and defence mentioned in Melanie Phillips's comment should be strictly acknowledged.
But the following should also be strictly acknowledged:
On the 22nd of July, 2002 a targeted killing of Salah Shehadeh was carried out in Gaza city.
During the operation, a one-ton bomb was dropped on the house in which Shehadeh was staying, killing him, Hamas activist Zahar Natzer, Shehadeh's wife Layla and his 15-year-old daughter Iman, who were with him in the house.

Unfortunately, as a result of the operation, 13 civilians including women and children, who were not directly involved in terrorist activities, were killed and dozens of civilians in the vicinity were injured.

No.
The one-ton bomb was not dropped of itself. A human being, probably an Isreali military man, dropped it. And he was probably fully aware of what he was doing: he probably assessed quite accurately what was going to happen. And he probably was aware of the fact, that he was dropping the one-ton bomb on an inhabited dwelling house, not on an empty house inhabited by Salah Shehadeh only. The targeted human being to be assassinated according to plan was Salah Shehadeh, and the other thirteen civilians including women and children were not only "not directly involved in terrorist activities"; they were probably like you and me:
innocent civilians; and you don't have to be morally confused to call them "innocent civilians", but you do have to be, I think, a bigot not to call them "innocent civilians" for no reason other than the fact that they were not Jews but "only" Palestinian Arabs.

And another thing: the thirteen civilians killed as a result of the operation were not "unfortunately" killed; they were killed, because the human being who dropped the one-ton bomb on them, and the people who sent this human being to this mission were ready to kill those thirteen, in addition to Shehadeh's wife layla and his fifteen-year-old daughter iman. It most certainly was not a matter of misfortune, it had been accepted by all who were involved in the operation as "collateral consequence" foreseen and anticipated in advance.
We should bear it in our mind.

Danny Wrong Mind: your moniker says it all. No Partition Plan envisioned any "inclination" of Arabs "to leave their land". This is an odious trope of the wrong minded. Nevertheless, the Arabs rejected these Plans. There has never been a "Palestinian" desire for two states in Palestine nor will there ever be. There has never been a desire of moslems in the region to have Jews live as equals, whether or not Jew rightfully own land there and have done so for thousands of years... and there never will be. The region will therefore be consigned to endless conflict and - I can assure you - even if you play "the long game" of the Islamists, it will only cement the consignment of chance of Palestinian prosperity to the dungheap. They only have themselves and the wrong headed to blame.

Journalism, propaganda
and moral confusion
By Melanie Phillips
The Daily Mail,
30th of October 2011

"… ‘The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has multiple narratives and can be looked at in many ways. Military occupation and colonisation lasting many decades and the murderous attacks by Palestinians against Israeli civilians have left thousands dead and a far greater number of lives in ruins. Palestinians and Israelis have suffered greatly in this conflict. This is not to excuse any individual act of murder or violence. My point is that a piece explaining how a Palestinian feels about the prisoner releases, in this context and as a part of our wide range of coverage, is legitimate and revealing journalism.

‘I hope this goes some way to explaining why we commissioned and published this piece.

‘Best regards and thanks,

‘Tarik Kafala
Middle East editor
BBC News website’ ".

What has left thousands dead has not been "military occupation and colonisation lasting many decades" on the one hand, "and the murderous attacks by Palestinians against Israeli civilians" on the other hand;
Not so, with respect.

This portrayal is too kind, too glossy, too bland, I think.
It should be harsher, more scathing, more penetrating and more even-handed;
It should state clearly:
What has left thousands dead has been Israeli military acts of force, targeted assassinations, smart bombs of large magnitude and other murderous activities against combatant and civilian Palestinians, women, children and old people – in order to defend Israel and its occupied territories, on the one hand, and murderous attacks by Palestinians against combatant and civilian Israelis, women, children and old people – in order to try to get Israeli occupation off the back of the Palestinian people, on the other hand. Up till now, alas – in vain.

And another thing:
Even at the very beginning of Zionism (1897), and before the eruption of the long conflict between Arabs and Jews over Palestine - the common denominator among all Zionists was the claim to Eretz Israel as the national homeland of the Jews and as the legitimate focus for the Jewish national self-determination. It was based on historical ties and religious traditions linking the Jewish people to the Land of Israel.
The era in which Zionism emerged (the second half of the 19th century) was an era of nation-states and democracy. This was the Zeitgeist, "the spirit of the times" or "the spirit of the age."
And the claim to the Land of Israel as a Jewish state was bound, from the very beginning of Zionism, to require, that the founders of Zionism and the first Jewish immigrants to Palestine face the harsh reality that there were in Palestine at that time hundreds of thousands of native Arabs living there and considering Palestine as their own homeland. And the problem for those Zionists was: how to claim Palestine as a Jewish and democratic state, and how to convince world opinion and international institutions such as the League of Nations and the United Nations that a Jewish state in Palestine was compatible both with the value of nationhood and the value of democracy, in the face of massive presence of hundreds of thousands of native Arabs, who were not showing any inclination to leave the land of their own accord for the new Jewish immigrants.
Ethnic Cleansing of the Palestinians from Palestine or part of it was, therefore, a necessity for Zionism from its very birth, and before the eruption of the actual conflict between Arabs and Jews in this land.
We should bear it in our mind.

Just recently, I have learned that in the 1948 Israeli/Arab war, British officers were leading Arab forces against the newly UN formed Israel- from Jordan and Egypt. The British gave training to the Arabs and supplied them with sophisticated weaponry, whilst preventing the Israelis from accessing weapons... all because they want the oil.
I am beginning to feel totally sick at my county's behaviour.

Long observation suggests an explanation for this righteous avoidance of debate. On Israel, Melanie Phillips appears to rely on the Israeli government for her information on current events, except when the ultras think the government too moderate. (The coincidence in timing and topic between government releases and the various wholly independent bloggers is striking.) On the history, again, Melanie Phillips appears to rely on the Israeli government (I refer you to the MFA web-site), or to such as the Jewish Virtual Library and Palestine Facts (sic) which repeat the selfsame myths, half-truths and tendentious interpretations. In this way, she can feel herself to be truly honest in her reporting: she tells it as she sees it, in good faith. If her motives or her objectivity are questioned, she feels justified in her righteous indignation: after all, she tells it only as she sees it.

Thank you, John. I will repeat: I ask Melanie Phillips to live up to the responsibilities of someone given access to a bully pulpit such as a Daily Mail blog and to report both sides objectively and to draw her conclusions reasonably and rationally. Despite what she says, this request is neither ignorance nor bigotry. I note she has failed to specify just wherein lie my "errors" and "ignorance" - it is so much easier to bully and hector than to engage in debate.

Alison correctly points out in a reasoned fashion that Israel is more than capable of very aggressive murderous activity. Mel replies with the usual round of clichés and muddled, biased thinking. Not to mention her writing style is hectoring and effecting to be morally superior at all times.

The exchange between our blogger and Alison caught my eye. Is our blogger saying that Israeli settlers do not attack Palestinians? (Do the olive trees uproot themselves and are the fires an instance of spontaneous combustion and the stones a mysterious reversal of Newton's laws?) Is our blogger saying that when the Prime Minister's adviser talks of putting the people of Gaza on a diet, when a government minister warns of unleashing a "shoah", when the President talks of teaching the people of Gaza a lesson, when the foreign minister boasts of showing "real hooliganism" in Gaza, when generals state that the purpose is to set the economy of Gaza back decades...these do not constitute collective punishment? Do they constitute self-defence because Israel says they do, despite what international law in fact says? And on preemptive retaliation, we should perhaps examine how well Orde Wingate's lessons were learned and have been applied over the last six decades. - What does our blogger mean when she talks of "error" in "virtually every phrase"? Let us try one further test of truth and error: when the Israeli security forces reported to the cabinet that the ceasefire with Hamas was holding, and that Hamas was offering to extend it, and the cabinet then authorised a military incursion into Gaza, does this constitute Hamas breaking the ceasefire, requiring of Israel a military response in its defence that meets none of the criteria for legitimate self-defence laid out in international law - would that be what is meant by Israel acting only in self-defence?

I see you continue with the casuistry that does you no credit, that Israel only ever "defends" itself. The historical record says otherwise. When you find yourself able to comment not just on the bits you think justify your prejudices, then perhaps you may start throwing around accusations of moral bankruptcy without provoking the same hollow laughter that greets complaints from you (of all people) about venom. Do try to be something more than a mere propagandist. Try to live up to the lofty ideals you brandish as if a defence of your rather less lofty practice: "truth, justice, and decency" will compel you to acknowledge that the Palestinians have rights as well as (N.B. AS WELL AS) Israelis, and that the state of Israel has very deliberately trampled those rights to acquire more land and more resources at their expense. Use what talents you have to promote peace (perhaps even the peace that everyone, but everyone, except the US and Israel has accepted these many years), not to provoke further hatred as you now do. With your position comes responsibility.

What venom. Your message is all too revealing about yourself. Crucially you do not acknowledge the differerence between attack and defence. Given such moral bankruptcy, not surprisingly you do not allow mere facts to interrupt your stream of prejudices, the error of which is on display in virtually every phrase. The more you protest, the more you dig the hole ever deeper.Thanks for the ammunition for my position in defence of truth, justice and decency.

I don't know whether this headline is brazen or self-deluding. Don't report just those events that confirm your prejudices, or you're not a "journalist" but a "propagandist". Don't condemn the killing of some civilians but not others. Don't hide behind the casuistical excuse that the IDF does not "intend" to kill when it deliberately demolishes civilian quarters to "teach the population a lesson" (as Israeli politicians and IDF officers have explicitly stated), or you're clearly "morally confused". Start reporting what Israel does to Palestinians as well as vice versa. Let's make it easy for you, start with the non-lethal attacks by settlers and security services in the West Bank. You can work up to the preemptive collective punishments in Gaza once you have accustomed yourself to reporting both sides.

Thank goodness for Melanie!
As someone converting to Judaism, the level of anti semitic remarks I encounter, from alleged intelligent people, is astounding. Comments such as "what on earth would you want to do that for, what with Israel?" (this from a prominent member of a highly regarded local society) are all too common.
Misplaced sympathy for the so called underdog is everywhere. Trying walking through York on a Saturday afternoon without having the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign members thrust leaflets into your hand.
A German friend, also converting, is amazed at how much biased and anti-semitic material is published in Britain which he says would simply not be tolerated in Germany.
I worry what this general upsurge in biased, unfair reporting and subsequent anti-semitism is leading to.

I lived for many years in the UK, and I am very much a fan of everything British. I was brought up on the notion of fair play, and I was told that this is one of the virtues of British people. Here in Germany, where anti-Semitism went off the scale 60 years ago, journalism as displayed by the BBC would not be tolerated by any official or serious newspaper or TV station. Firstly, because Germany has learned from its racist past, and secondly because it is one sided, lazy and cheap. I just cannot believe that the BBC has sunk so low, and that the once proud news corporation has lost all credibility. One might as well tune into Iran TV, at least there they are open about their racism and hatred. Thank god there are people like MacEoin and Melanie Phillips who tell it like it is!

The BBC (sadly) reflects the views of your typical Brit. No matter where I go in this country, and without ANY solicitation, if the Middle East comes up, Israel gets it in the neck. And the second anyone finds out you are Jewish, you get the same 'look' and response that one does as an Englishman walking into a Welsh pub in the middle of nowhere.

As per our war with Argentinia where one minute we were buying their meat goods, and the next they were our most hated enemy (justifiably of course), people do swing in a particular direction if they detect a specific sentiment. It takes a lot of brevity to take an alternative viewpoint, even if that viewpoint is the truth.

As the Arab nations fall and (try) to adopt democracy, it may well be that the people of the anti-semitic UK (and that is what they are really) will realise that Israel was right all along and begin to empathise with their position.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.